7 ms·

This is ridiculous. The complexity of manually washing a spoon, even with all those steps added, isn't even in the same ballpark as manufacturing it. You need a

This is ridiculous. The complexity of manually washing a spoon, even with all those steps added, isn't even in the same ballpark as manufacturing it. You need all of the same kind of steps to manufacture the spoon (including piping water to the factory and cleaning it with soap or whatever), and the other ones are orders of magnitude more complex. And just because you added more words and used some technical terms it doesn't show any more complexity.

js2 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
- throwamon 4y ago
  A tongue-in-cheek based on a straw man doesn't make you look good
ajuc 4y ago
Comparisons without numbers are just poetry.
mastax 4y ago
It's not arguing that one is more or less complex than the other. It's saying that everything in modern life is complex, and simply saying "X is complex" isn't a sufficient basis to make a decision about the relative merits of X and Y.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwamon 4y ago
  That's the problem. The original image is talking about "effort", which I take to be about energy and natural resource usage, but this response deflects it to "complexity" to make it seem like anything is equally justifiable regardless of how wasteful it is.
  - mega_dingus 4y ago
    Key words being "I take to be..." You're outright admitting you can't understand the post, or the point of the post, as you want to steadfastly hold to the original premise If the reply post talked about the petroleum and other natural resources used to extract and transport the sodium hydroxide et al to your home, would that placate you?
    - throwamon 4y ago
      No, I think I understand the point of the post perfectly fine, and I also happen to think you don't understand mine. The post is kinda like when someone says they don't buy things with "chemicals" in it and you take the opportunity to make a joke that highlights how naive they are. Doesn't mean there isn't a valid point being made if they were able to convey it better.
bmmayer1 4y ago
Aren't there going to be likewise complex manufacturing processes behind the chemicals and machinery, including plastics, used in water treatment and piping? It's turtles all the way down. That's the point.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Those processes could reasonably be considered essential in modern times, because we all need to have potable water available anyway. The manufacture of plastic disposable spoons could not.
  - throwamon 4y ago
    Thanks, this is the obvious point every other reply here seems to blissfully ignore. The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing.
gdss 4y ago
- throwamon 4y ago
  Because we're destroying the planet and cynical takes like this post and replies to my comment aren't making it any better.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
The scale at which plastic spoons are manufactured completely dwarfs with efficiency, the effort to individually wash one spoon. It's likely 10X to 100X more expensive to the environment to wash that spoon. See, its eco-theatre our generation will be remembered for. Fiddling around with plastic recycle while the planet burns.
- titzer 4y ago
  What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In reality, humanity has been washing spoons since the dawn of...spoons. Humanity has been making plastic spoons for ~60 years. "Because it scales [1]" is no argument whatsoever for doing something unsustainable. [1] Right now, with cheap oil, that is.
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    So spoons are unsustainable? Not sure I follow. It's more sustainable to throw away a plastic spoon that wash it. That's pretty plain - an individual has not optimized their process for cost and resource usage - they're just squirting randomly like 100X the soap it would take in a large industrial washer to get that spoon clean. Efficiencies of scale are massive and irresistible. You cannot grow vegetables in your back yard at the same level of efficiency that big ag can, not even close. You can't drive your individual car at anywhere the efficiency of a bus or train - we should all get on board that one, it makes sense to people. While somehow the other efficiencies don't. They just get mad when you point that out.
    - aflag 4y ago
      Industrially washing the spoon may be more efficient than someone washing it by hand. However, that's not really the comparison here. Even if the step of washing the newly created plastic spoons (if that exists at all) is more efficient, there's still a lot more going on.
      - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
323 4y ago
But then you have a lazy employee which doesn't wash the spoon properly, a patron gets intoxicated, or worse, dies (peanut allergy) and sues for $5 mil damage. This unbounded liability in US law is the cause of a lot of bad things...
- _visgean 4y ago
  has this happened?
  - 323 4y ago
    It's even a business model: > If you or a loved one gets sick after eating at a restaurant, contact OFT Food Safety & Injury Lawyers. > To successfully sue a restaurant for food poisoning, you must prove that they had a duty, failed to meet that duty with negligent action or inaction. As a result, you became ill, and you suffered financial damages. https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-food-poisoning/ https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-foo... > If the food is prepared with unclean cooking utensils https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poisoning-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poison...
    - eesmith 4y ago
      The question was has your scenario happened. That said, it's a poorly phrased scenario. Anyone can sue for any amount. Like Jason Scott's talk "That Awesome Time I Was Sued For Two Billion Dollars" - https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Scott https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html... Even having a maximum doesn't mean that someone can't file a suit asking for more. So, who has won a case similar to what you described, and with a $5 million settlement? And, why was that gratuitously high? That's important, because we know there are decades of propaganda for why business owners need protection against excessive lawsuits, where the actual details show it was not excessive, most famously, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. That last one shows how the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000 by the judge - and was still higher than what Liebeck sued for. That said, you should also address why there are lawyers with that business model, which might be less common elsewhere. 1) The US system prefers a more caveat emptor approach, where issues are resolved though civil lawsuits (or, alas, binding arbitration) than through government organization which can investigate cases of food poisoning. 2) The US's private health-care system means the poisoned person is by default obligated to pay for care, unless someone else can be forced to pay. If the food poisoning requires hospital care, this can be quite expensive. 3) The US does not have strong job security laws nor a strong social safety net. If someone get food poisoning which keeps them from working for a couple of days, they may easily be fired, and find themself in economically precarious circumstances. Because the US prefers lawsuits to resolve these things, there are lawyers who specialize in this area. Change the laws - have strong food inspections, switch to single-payer health care, improve job security, and strengthen the social safety net for unemployed people - and there will be significantly less call for this business model.

js2 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

throwamon 4y ago
A tongue-in-cheek based on a straw man doesn't make you look good

ajuc 4y ago

Comparisons without numbers are just poetry.

mastax 4y ago

It's not arguing that one is more or less complex than the other. It's saying that everything in modern life is complex, and simply saying "X is complex" isn't a sufficient basis to make a decision about the relative merits of X and Y.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwamon 4y ago
That's the problem. The original image is talking about "effort", which I take to be about energy and natural resource usage, but this response deflects it to "complexity" to make it seem like anything is equally justifiable regardless of how wasteful it is.
- mega_dingus 4y ago
  Key words being "I take to be..." You're outright admitting you can't understand the post, or the point of the post, as you want to steadfastly hold to the original premise If the reply post talked about the petroleum and other natural resources used to extract and transport the sodium hydroxide et al to your home, would that placate you?
  - throwamon 4y ago
    No, I think I understand the point of the post perfectly fine, and I also happen to think you don't understand mine. The post is kinda like when someone says they don't buy things with "chemicals" in it and you take the opportunity to make a joke that highlights how naive they are. Doesn't mean there isn't a valid point being made if they were able to convey it better.

bmmayer1 4y ago

Aren't there going to be likewise complex manufacturing processes behind the chemicals and machinery, including plastics, used in water treatment and piping? It's turtles all the way down. That's the point.

ryukafalz 4y ago
Those processes could reasonably be considered essential in modern times, because we all need to have potable water available anyway. The manufacture of plastic disposable spoons could not.
- throwamon 4y ago
  Thanks, this is the obvious point every other reply here seems to blissfully ignore. The levels of cognitive dissonance are astonishing.

gdss 4y ago

throwamon 4y ago
Because we're destroying the planet and cynical takes like this post and replies to my comment aren't making it any better.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

The scale at which plastic spoons are manufactured completely dwarfs with efficiency, the effort to individually wash one spoon. It's likely 10X to 100X more expensive to the environment to wash that spoon. See, its eco-theatre our generation will be remembered for. Fiddling around with plastic recycle while the planet burns.

titzer 4y ago
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In reality, humanity has been washing spoons since the dawn of...spoons. Humanity has been making plastic spoons for ~60 years. "Because it scales [1]" is no argument whatsoever for doing something unsustainable. [1] Right now, with cheap oil, that is.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  So spoons are unsustainable? Not sure I follow. It's more sustainable to throw away a plastic spoon that wash it. That's pretty plain - an individual has not optimized their process for cost and resource usage - they're just squirting randomly like 100X the soap it would take in a large industrial washer to get that spoon clean. Efficiencies of scale are massive and irresistible. You cannot grow vegetables in your back yard at the same level of efficiency that big ag can, not even close. You can't drive your individual car at anywhere the efficiency of a bus or train - we should all get on board that one, it makes sense to people. While somehow the other efficiencies don't. They just get mad when you point that out.
  - aflag 4y ago
    Industrially washing the spoon may be more efficient than someone washing it by hand. However, that's not really the comparison here. Even if the step of washing the newly created plastic spoons (if that exists at all) is more efficient, there's still a lot more going on.
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago

323 4y ago

But then you have a lazy employee which doesn't wash the spoon properly, a patron gets intoxicated, or worse, dies (peanut allergy) and sues for $5 mil damage. This unbounded liability in US law is the cause of a lot of bad things...

_visgean 4y ago
has this happened?
- 323 4y ago
  It's even a business model: > If you or a loved one gets sick after eating at a restaurant, contact OFT Food Safety & Injury Lawyers. > To successfully sue a restaurant for food poisoning, you must prove that they had a duty, failed to meet that duty with negligent action or inaction. As a result, you became ill, and you suffered financial damages. https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-food-poisoning/ https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/can-you-sue-a-restaurant-for-foo... > If the food is prepared with unclean cooking utensils https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poisoning-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/food-poison...
  - eesmith 4y ago
    The question was has your scenario happened. That said, it's a poorly phrased scenario. Anyone can sue for any amount. Like Jason Scott's talk "That Awesome Time I Was Sued For Two Billion Dollars" - https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Scott https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html... Even having a maximum doesn't mean that someone can't file a suit asking for more. So, who has won a case similar to what you described, and with a $5 million settlement? And, why was that gratuitously high? That's important, because we know there are decades of propaganda for why business owners need protection against excessive lawsuits, where the actual details show it was not excessive, most famously, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. That last one shows how the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000 by the judge - and was still higher than what Liebeck sued for. That said, you should also address why there are lawyers with that business model, which might be less common elsewhere. 1) The US system prefers a more caveat emptor approach, where issues are resolved though civil lawsuits (or, alas, binding arbitration) than through government organization which can investigate cases of food poisoning. 2) The US's private health-care system means the poisoned person is by default obligated to pay for care, unless someone else can be forced to pay. If the food poisoning requires hospital care, this can be quite expensive. 3) The US does not have strong job security laws nor a strong social safety net. If someone get food poisoning which keeps them from working for a couple of days, they may easily be fired, and find themself in economically precarious circumstances. Because the US prefers lawsuits to resolve these things, there are lawyers who specialize in this area. Change the laws - have strong food inspections, switch to single-payer health care, improve job security, and strengthen the social safety net for unemployed people - and there will be significantly less call for this business model.